IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
June 22, 2010
HEATHER DELUZ, PLAINTIFF,
THE LAW OFFICE OF FREDERICK S. COHEN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
This case came before the court on June 18, 2010, for hearing on the motion to dismiss filed by defendants Law Office of Fredrick S. Cohen and Fredrick S. Cohen, individually (the Cohen defendants). Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se in this action, appeared on her own behalf. Jason J. Sommer, Esq. appeared for the Cohen defendants and was accompanied by defendant Fredrick S. Cohen.
Plaintiff did not respond to defendants' motion by filing written opposition or a statement of no opposition to the motion, as required by Local Rule 230(c). In light of plaintiff's pro se status and in the interests of justice, the court established a briefing schedule and continued the hearing of defendants' motion to August 6, 2010, at which time the motion will be heard concurrently with the motion to dismiss filed by defendants Stephanie Stilley and Thomas L. Russell.
The court advised plaintiff in open court of her duty to comply with applicable rules and orders. Plaintiff is cautioned that a party representing himself or herself without an attorney is bound by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, these [local] rules, and all other applicable law. All obligations placed on "counsel" by these Rules apply to individuals appearing in propria persona. Failure to comply therewith may be ground for dismissal, judgment by default, or any other sanction appropriate under these Rules.
Local Rule 183(a).
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Hearing of the motion filed by defendants the Law Office of Fredrick S. Cohen and Fredrick S. Cohen, individually (Doc. No. 7) is continued to August 6, 2010, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 27.
2. Plaintiff's written opposition or a statement of no opposition to the Cohen defendants' motion shall be filed with the court and served by mail on defendants' counsel on or before July 9, 2010; plaintiff's response to the motion must be received by the Clerk for filing on or before July 9, 2010, and must include a proof of service showing that the response has been served on defendants' counsel.
3. If plaintiff files timely opposition to the Cohen defendants' motion, the defendants' reply shall be filed and served on or before July 23, 2010.
4. Plaintiff's response to the motion to dismiss filed by defendants Stilley and Russell (Doc. No. 6) shall be filed and served on or before July 23, 2010, as required by Local Rule 230(c), and any reply shall be filed and served in accordance with Local Rule 230(d).
5. The Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference set for August 6, 2010, at 11:00 a.m. is vacated pending the court's ruling on defendants' motions to dismiss, and the parties are relieved of the obligation to file status reports.
6. Any party may appear at the motions hearing telephonically if the party pre-arranges such appearance by contacting Pete Buzo, the courtroom deputy of the undersigned magistrate judge, at (916) 930-4128, no later than 48 hours before the hearing date.
7. Plaintiff is cautioned that any subsequent failure to file and serve a timely response to a motion may result in an order recommending an appropriate sanction, which may include dismissal for failure to comply with court orders and applicable rules. See Local Rules 110 and 183.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.